arXiv subjects

Paul Gölz

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Gölz.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

PMMS Allocations Need Not Exist for 3 Agents with Additive Valuations

This note gives an instance demonstrating that the pairwise maximin share (PMMS) property cannot be satisfied by any allocation in certain fair division problems with indivisible goods and additive valuations. The instance requires only $n=3$ agents and $m=9$ goods, and is accompanied by a proof that no PMMS allocation exists. A separate instance shows (certified by exhaustive enumeration with a computer) that PMMS cannot be approximated within a ratio above $78/79 \approx 0.987$.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Approval-Based Apportionment: Like Portioning, Approximately like Committee Voting

We study approval-based apportionment, a variant of committee elections in which candidates ("parties") can be selected several times. We show that the proportionality axioms EJR, EJR+, and FJR coincide, and so do PJR, PJR+, and FPJR; that Lindahl priceability, an axiom implying core stability, is equivalent to a notion of approximate optimality with respect to the proportional approval voting (PAV) score; and that locally PAV-optimal committees are priceable. Approval-based apportionment (where a candidate receives an integer number of seats) lies between committee elections (zero or one seat) and portioning (a fractional number of seats). We formally connect portioning and apportionment by giving a construction that lifts axioms from apportionment to portioning and preserves implications between them. Several of our new implications between apportionment axioms are natural from a portioning perspective, leading us to believe that apportionment sits closer to portioning than to committee elections. None of them holds in committee elections, but several extend approximately, which makes apportionment a fruitful setting for conjecturing approximate relationships in approval-based committee elections.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Maximally Random Sortition

Citizens' assemblies are a form of democratic innovation in which a randomly selected panel of constituents deliberates on questions of public interest. We study a novel goal for the selection of panel members: maximizing the entropy of the distribution over possible panels. We design algorithms that sample from maximum-entropy distributions, potentially subject to constraints on the individual selection probabilities. We investigate the properties of these algorithms theoretically, including in terms of their resistance to manipulation and transparency. We benchmark our algorithms on a large set of real assembly lotteries in terms of their intersectional diversity and the probability of satisfying unseen representation constraints, and we obtain favorable results on both measures. We deploy one of our algorithms on a website for citizens' assembly practitioners.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Finding Common Ground in a Sea of Alternatives

We study the problem of selecting a statement that finds common ground across diverse population preferences. Generative AI is uniquely suited for this task because it can access a practically infinite set of statements, but AI systems like the Habermas machine leave the choice of generated statement to a voting rule. What it means for this rule to find common ground, however, is not well-defined. In this work, we propose a formal model for finding common ground in the infinite alternative setting based on the proportional veto core from social choice. To provide guarantees relative to these infinitely many alternatives and a large population, we wish to satisfy a notion of proportional veto core using only query access to the unknown distribution of alternatives and voters. We design an efficient sampling-based algorithm that returns an alternative in the (approximate) proportional veto core with high probability and prove matching lower bounds, which show that no algorithm can do the same using fewer queries. On a synthetic dataset of preferences over text, we confirm the effectiveness of our sampling-based algorithm and compare other social choice methods as well as LLM-based methods in terms of how reliably they produce statements in the proportional veto core.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

From Clicks to Consensus: Collective Consent Assemblies for Data Governance

Obtaining meaningful and informed consent from users is essential for ensuring autonomy and control over one's data. Notice and consent, the standard for collecting consent, has been criticized. While other individualized solutions have been proposed, this paper argues that a collective approach to consent is worth exploring. First, individual consent is not always feasible to collect for all data collection scenarios. Second, harms resulting from data processing are often communal in nature, given the interconnected nature of some data. Finally, ensuring truly informed consent for every individual has proven impractical. We propose collective consent, operationalized through consent assemblies, as one alternative framework. We establish collective consent's theoretical foundations and use speculative design to envision consent assemblies leveraging deliberative mini-publics. We present two vignettes: i) replacing notice and consent, and ii) collecting consent for GenAI model training. Our paper employs future backcasting to identify the requirements for realizing collective consent and explores its potential applications in contexts where individual consent is infeasible.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Fair Allocation of Indivisible Goods with Variable Groups

We study the fair allocation of indivisible goods with variable groups. In this model, the goal is to partition the agents into groups of given sizes and allocate the goods to the groups in a fair manner. We show that for any number of groups and corresponding sizes, there always exists an envy-free up to one good (EF1) outcome, thereby generalizing an important result from the individual setting. Our result holds for arbitrary monotonic utilities and comes with an efficient algorithm. We also prove that an EF1 outcome is guaranteed to exist even when the goods lie on a path and each group must receive a connected bundle. In addition, we consider a probabilistic model where the utilities are additive and drawn randomly from a distribution. We show that if there are $n$ agents, the number of goods $m$ is divisible by the number of groups $k$, and all groups have the same size, then an envy-free outcome exists with high probability if $m = ω(\log n)$, and this bound is tight. On the other hand, if $m$ is not divisible by $k$, then an envy-free outcome is unlikely to exist as long as $m = o(\sqrt{n})$.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

City Sampling for Citizens' Assemblies

In citizens' assemblies, a group of constituents is randomly selected to weigh in on policy issues. We study a two-stage sampling problem faced by practitioners in countries such as Germany, in which constituents' contact information is stored at a municipal level. As a result, practitioners can only select constituents from a bounded number of cities ex post, while ensuring equal selection probability for constituents ex ante. We develop several algorithms for this problem. Although minimizing the number of contacted cities is NP-hard, we provide a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm and an additive 1-approximation, both based on separation oracles for a linear programming formulation. Recognizing that practical objectives go beyond minimizing city count, we further introduce a simple and more interpretable greedy algorithm, which additionally satisfies an ex-post monotonicity property and achieves an additive 2-approximation. Finally, we explore a notion of ex-post proportionality, for which we propose two practical algorithms: an optimal algorithm based on column generation and integer linear programming and a simple heuristic creating particularly transparent distributions. We evaluate these algorithms on data from Germany, and plan to deploy them in cooperation with a leading nonprofit organization in this space.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Fair Division Among Couples and Small Groups

We study the fair allocation of indivisible goods across groups of agents, where each agent fully enjoys all goods allocated to their group. We focus on groups of two (couples) and other groups of small size. For two couples, an EF1 allocation -- one in which all agents find their group's bundle no worse than the other group's, up to one good -- always exists and can be found efficiently. For three or more couples, EF1 allocations need not exist. Turning to proportionality, we show that, whenever groups have size at most $k$, a PROP$k$ allocation exists and can be found efficiently. In fact, our algorithm additionally guarantees (fractional) Pareto optimality, and PROP1 to the first agent in each group, PROP2 to the second, etc., for an arbitrary agent ordering. In special cases, we show that there are PROP1 allocations for any number of couples.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences?

After pre-training, large language models are aligned with human preferences based on pairwise comparisons. State-of-the-art alignment methods (such as PPO-based RLHF and DPO) are built on the assumption of aligning with a single preference model, despite being deployed in settings where users have diverse preferences. As a result, it is not even clear that these alignment methods produce models that satisfy users on average -- a minimal requirement for pluralistic alignment. Drawing on social choice theory and modeling users' comparisons through individual Bradley-Terry (BT) models, we introduce an alignment method's distortion: the worst-case ratio between the optimal achievable average utility, and the average utility of the learned policy. The notion of distortion helps draw sharp distinctions between alignment methods: Nash Learning from Human Feedback achieves the minimax optimal distortion of $(\frac{1}{2} + o(1)) \cdot β$ (for the BT temperature $β$), robustly across utility distributions, distributions of comparison pairs, and permissible KL divergences from the reference policy. RLHF and DPO, by contrast, suffer $\geq (1 - o(1)) \cdot β$ distortion already without a KL constraint, and $e^{Ω(β)}$ or even unbounded distortion in the full setting, depending on how comparison pairs are sampled.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Putting Fair Division on the Map

The fair division of indivisible goods is not only a subject of theoretical research, but also an important problem in practice, with solutions being offered on several online platforms. Little is known, however, about the characteristics of real-world allocation instances and how they compare to synthetic instances. Using dimensionality reduction, we compute a map of allocation instances: a 2-dimensional embedding such that an instance's location on the map is predictive of the instance's origin and other key instance features. Because the axes of this map closely align with the utility matrix's two largest singular values, we define a second, explicit map, which we theoretically characterize.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Generative Social Choice

The mathematical study of voting, social choice theory, has traditionally only been applicable to choices among a few predetermined alternatives, but not to open-ended decisions such as collectively selecting a textual statement. We introduce generative social choice, a design methodology for open-ended democratic processes that combines the rigor of social choice theory with the capability of large language models to generate text and extrapolate preferences. Our framework divides the design of AI-augmented democratic processes into two components: first, proving that the process satisfies representation guarantees when given access to oracle queries; second, empirically validating that these queries can be approximately implemented using a large language model. We apply this framework to the problem of summarizing free-form opinions into a proportionally representative slate of opinion statements; specifically, we develop a democratic process with representation guarantees and use this process to portray the opinions of participants in a survey about abortion policy. In a trial with 100 representative US residents, we find that 84 out of 100 participants feel "excellently" or "exceptionally" represented by the slate of five statements we extracted.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

In This Apportionment Lottery, the House Always Wins

Apportionment is the problem of distributing $h$ indivisible seats across states in proportion to the states' populations. In the context of the US House of Representatives, this problem has a rich history and is a prime example of interactions between mathematical analysis and political practice. Grimmett (2004) suggested to apportion seats in a randomized way such that each state receives exactly their proportional share $q_i$ of seats in expectation (ex ante proportionality) and receives either $\lfloor q_i \rfloor$ or $\lceil q_i \rceil$ many seats ex post (quota). However, there is a vast space of randomized apportionment methods satisfying these two axioms, and so we additionally consider prominent axioms from the apportionment literature. Our main result is a randomized method satisfying quota, ex ante proportionality and house monotonicity - a property that prevents paradoxes when the number of seats changes and which we require to hold ex post. This result is based on a generalization of dependent rounding on bipartite graphs, which we call cumulative rounding and which might be of independent interest, as we demonstrate via applications beyond apportionment.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Monotone Randomized Apportionment

Apportionment is the act of distributing the seats of a legislature among political parties (or states) in proportion to their vote shares (or populations). A famous impossibility by Balinski and Young (2001) shows that no apportionment method can be proportional up to one seat (quota) while also responding monotonically to changes in the votes (population monotonicity). Grimmett (2004) proposed to overcome this impossibility by randomizing the apportionment, which can achieve quota as well as perfect proportionality and monotonicity -- at least in terms of the expected number of seats awarded to each party. Still, the correlations between the seats awarded to different parties may exhibit bizarre non-monotonicities. When parties or voters care about joint events, such as whether a coalition of parties reaches a majority, these non-monotonicities can cause paradoxes, including incentives for strategic voting. In this paper, we propose monotonicity axioms ruling out these paradoxes, and study which of them can be satisfied jointly with Grimmett's axioms. Essentially, we require that, if a set of parties all receive more votes, the probability of those parties jointly receiving more seats should increase. Our work draws on a rich literature on unequal probability sampling in statistics (studied as dependent randomized rounding in computer science). Our main result shows that a sampling scheme due to Sampford (1967) satisfies Grimmett's axioms and a notion of higher-order correlation monotonicity.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Dynamic Placement in Refugee Resettlement

Employment outcomes of resettled refugees depend strongly on where they are placed inside the host country. Each week, a resettlement agency is assigned a batch of refugees by the United States government. The agency must place these refugees in its local affiliates, while respecting the affiliates' yearly capacities. We develop an allocation system that suggests where to place an incoming refugee, in order to improve total employment success. Our algorithm is based on two-stage stochastic programming and achieves over 98 percent of the hindsight-optimal employment, compared to under 90 percent of current greedy-like approaches. This dramatic improvement persists even when we incorporate a vast array of practical features of the refugee resettlement process including indivisible families, batching, and uncertainty with respect to the number of future arrivals. Our algorithm is now part of the Annie MOORE optimization software used by a leading American refugee resettlement agency.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Envy-Free and Pareto-Optimal Allocations for Agents with Asymmetric Random Valuations

We study the problem of allocating $m$ indivisible items to $n$ agents with additive utilities. It is desirable for the allocation to be both fair and efficient, which we formalize through the notions of envy-freeness and Pareto-optimality. While envy-free and Pareto-optimal allocations may not exist for arbitrary utility profiles, previous work has shown that such allocations exist with high probability assuming that all agents' values for all items are independently drawn from a common distribution. In this paper, we consider a generalization of this model where each agent's utilities are drawn independently from a distribution specific to the agent. We show that envy-free and Pareto-optimal allocations are likely to exist in this asymmetric model when $m=Ω\left(n\log n\right)$, which is tight up to a log log gap that also remains open in the symmetric subsetting. Furthermore, these guarantees can be achieved by a polynomial-time algorithm.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2022

Approval-Based Apportionment

In the apportionment problem, a fixed number of seats must be distributed among parties in proportion to the number of voters supporting each party. We study a generalization of this setting, in which voters can support multiple parties by casting approval ballots. This approval-based apportionment setting generalizes traditional apportionment and is a natural restriction of approval-based multiwinner elections, where approval ballots range over individual candidates instead of parties. Using techniques from both apportionment and multiwinner elections, we identify rules that generalize the D'Hondt apportionment method and that satisfy strong axioms which are generalizations of properties commonly studied in the apportionment literature. In fact, the rules we discuss provide representation guarantees that are currently out of reach in the general setting of multiwinner elections: First, we show that core-stable committees are guaranteed to exist and can be found in polynomial time. Second, we demonstrate that extended justified representation is compatible with committee monotonicity (also known as house monotonicity).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Incentive-Compatible Kidney Exchange in a Slightly Semi-Random Model

Motivated by kidney exchange, we study the following mechanism-design problem: On a directed graph (of transplant compatibilities among patient-donor pairs), the mechanism must select a simple path (a chain of transplantations) starting at a distinguished vertex (an altruistic donor) such that the total length of this path is as large as possible (a maximum number of patients receive a kidney). However, the mechanism does not have direct access to the graph. Instead, the vertices are partitioned over multiple players (hospitals), and each player reports a subset of her vertices to the mechanism. In particular, a player may strategically omit vertices to increase how many of her vertices lie on the path returned by the mechanism. Our objective is to find mechanisms that limit incentives for such manipulation while producing long paths. Unfortunately, in worst-case instances, competing with the overall longest path is impossible while incentivizing (approximate) truthfulness, i.e., requiring that hiding nodes cannot increase a player's utility by more than a factor of $1 + o(1)$. We therefore adopt a semi-random model where a small ($o(n)$) number of random edges are added to worst-case instances. While it remains impossible for truthful mechanisms to compete with the overall longest path, we give a truthful mechanism that competes with a weaker but non-trivial benchmark: the length of any path whose subpaths within each player have a minimum average length. In fact, our mechanism satisfies even a stronger notion of truthfulness, which we call matching-time incentive compatibility. This notion of truthfulness requires that each player not only reports her nodes truthfully but also does not stop the returned path at any of her nodes in order to divert it to a continuation inside her own subgraph.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Neutralizing Self-Selection Bias in Sampling for Sortition

Sortition is a political system in which decisions are made by panels of randomly selected citizens. The process for selecting a sortition panel is traditionally thought of as uniform sampling without replacement, which has strong fairness properties. In practice, however, sampling without replacement is not possible since only a fraction of agents is willing to participate in a panel when invited, and different demographic groups participate at different rates. In order to still produce panels whose composition resembles that of the population, we develop a sampling algorithm that restores close-to-equal representation probabilities for all agents while satisfying meaningful demographic quotas. As part of its input, our algorithm requires probabilities indicating how likely each volunteer in the pool was to participate. Since these participation probabilities are not directly observable, we show how to learn them, and demonstrate our approach using data on a real sortition panel combined with information on the general population in the form of publicly available survey data.

cs.GT↗